Loading...
11-13-2001 n/s Planning and Zoning Meeting Tuesday, November 13, 2001 The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in Regular session on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 at 7:OOpm in the Municipal Complex Bob Andrews Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. Planning 8z Zoning Commission Ci Staff David Richmond, Chairman Ron Youngblood, City Planner Ernie Evans, Vice-Chair Mary Ybarra, Recording Secretary Tony Moreno Michael Spain, City Attorney William Sommers Gary Wallace Keith Van Dine Ken Greenwald, ex-officio Absent Others present Joyce Briscoe Scott Baker, PO Box 1481 Alan Lindskog, 11500 IHIDW #345 Mark Mott, PO Box 781262 Suzi Morgan, PO Box 781262 Robert Brockman, 4505 Grand Forest Dr. Robert Brocher, 11202 Disco #1 Call to Order: Chairman Richmond called the meeting of November 13, 2001 to order at 7:OOpm. #2 Citizens input other than agenda items: There was none #3 Status of Final Plats: Chairman Richmond reported there were two final plats approved, Oak Trails Unit 2B and Wynn Brook Unit 1. #4 BOA Actions: Mr. Sommers advised the Commission that there had not been a Board of Adjustment meeting since the last Planning and Zoning meeting. #5 Consider and Make Recommendation: To changes to Unified Development Code (UDC) Article IX Sign Ordinance. Mr. Youngblood reported the biggest concern was item 7.3 (the exceptions}. He pointed out that the. City needs to be careful. with the restrictions. Mr. Spain stated that he has followed up with some earlier discussions with the City Manager and Staff regarding ways the off-premise section of the sign ordinance could be modified. He explained the section could be re-written one of two ways; it could read "nothing is permitted" or it could read "nothing is permitted, except the following" and list the exceptions. Mr. Spain suggested the second reading (nothing is permitted, except the following). He then spoke in regards to section 7.2 with reference to Billboards, and stated that this section could be eliminated depending on what the City would like to do. He asked the Commission how limited they would want to be and if they want the ordinance to say no off-premise signs except what is specifically authorized. Mr. Spain advised the Commission that the modified sign ordinance would not change what is already in existence (signs that are already placed) prior to the date of the ordinance being changed. He noted there is some "sign board" reference in the ordinance and suggested the City leave it out. With reference in, the City would need to change its UDC (sign ordinance) every time State laws changed to ensure compliance. He suggested the City's enforcement policy could read, "the City has the right to remove signs in accordance with State laws". Mr. Spain then suggested this could be placed in the enforcement section of the UDC so there is no confusion that it only applies to off-premise signs. Mr. Youngblood mentioned there has been talk about condensing billboard signs to the blue Texas Logo signs used at Interstate exits indicating food, lodging, etc. Mr. Spain stated that the rules need to be clear and in an organized way to eliminate any confusion. Chairman Richmond stated he completely agrees with section 7.1, but does not feel that section 7.2 should remain in the UDC when section 7.1 covers it all. Mr. Evans asked Mr. Spain where he would add the paragraph regarding enforcement procedures. Mr. Spain suggested adding a new section to the article for enforcement policies/procedures. 2 Mr. Evans asked if each article/section of the UDC has to have its own set of enforcement procedures. Mr. Spain stated he was not sure and would have to check. He advised the Commission that if there is a general enforcement procedure, the City would need to make sure that it would cover all of the articles in the UDC or else make enforcement procedures for each individual article. There was some discussion regarding general versus individual enforcement procedures. At this time, Mr. Spain suggested there should be some type of explanation if a procedure in the individual article is more specific or strict than the general policy. This would help eliminate any debate that may come later. Chairman Richmond expressed concern regarding bench signs. He felt the reason for changing the UDC was to eliminate some of the clutter and make the community look more aesthetically pleasing.. With all of the construction and improvements that are taking place or planned, particularly .along FM78 and in the downtown area, the City might want to place benches appropriately along new sidewalks. If so, these benches should not be subject to signs. Mr. Scott Baker commented he agrees with Chairman Richmond on the bench sign issue. He then commented on political signs and stated they should only be allowed during campaigns and only for a certain period of time. Mr. Baker suggested that portable signs only be allowed for a limited time period (90 days). Mr. Baker mentioned the company he works for and gave the Commission some history of his employer. He then noted his employer (Kim Outdoor signs) might be interested in placing billboards on some property in Schertz. He continued to explain about the company and added it is a local company and would only have local or State signs posted. Mr. Baker further stated that he believes the City of Schertz is a certified City within the State, and they might have control over removing signs without adherence to the new State laws. Chairman Richmond thanked Mr. Baker for attending and stated the Commission would consider his proposal. Ms. Susan Morgan (Molts Wrecker Service) suggested that putting a small plaque on benches might be suitable (if the City put any benches in). Chairman Richmond stated that would be 3 acceptable. The City just doesn't want a big "Budweiser" sign or some similar advertising on the benches. Chairman Richmond stated that he believes Mr. Leonard Truitt, building official, needs to be involved with this as well. He would need to know the enforcement procedures. Chairman Richmond reported he would like to see some of this resolved tonight. He would like to recommend to City Council a change in section 7, not a rewrite of the sign ordinance. If City Council agrees, this would at least establish a date to prevent additional off-premise signage so that the Planning and Zoning Commission may move ahead with the rest of the sign ordinance. He believes that section 7.2 does not need to be included in the UDC. Mr. Spain suggested that the Planning and Zoning Commission look through the UDC for any other signs that they might want to allow that are not listed. There was also some discussion regarding subdivision signs; however, this section needs to be clearer on what the rules are before any discussion can take place. Mr. Van Dine stated he does not have a problem with billboards being placed along IH-10 and IH-35; he only has a problem with them being placed along FM 78, FM 3009, and FM 1518. Mr. Van Dine suggested they limit the amount of billboards and the distance between each one rather than eliminating them all together. Chairman Richmond felt there would be problems if they started making exceptions to section 7.1 (other than what is listed in section 7.3). Mr. Van Dine stated that if the Commission agrees to this change, then they are all going to have to stick together and stand firm when developers, citizens, etc., come in and ask for variances. Mr. Evans noted that if this new revision goes before City Council and is passed, it also would remove all of the existing section 7 which controls sign dimensional requirements. There needs to be something stated about dimensional requirements for existing signs. 4 Mr. Spain asked if there is anywhere else in the article that would limit the dimensions of a sign or billboard. It was reported that dimensions are mentioned in some, but not all, of the definitions. Mr. Spain then suggested adding the dimensions to section 4 (General provisions). Mr. Evans asked Mr. Youngblood to send a copy of this article electronically so that he could go through it and make the changes for the dimensions. After brief discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to table this item until the next meeting, giving Mr. Evans time to work out the dimension issue. Without further discussion, Mr. Sommers moved to table the request to make changes to Unified Development Code (UDC) Article IX Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. With a vote being taken, the motion was approved. #6 Consider and take appropriate action: On proceeding to remove illegal signage on FM 3009, Walgreens and H2 Auto Car Wash. Mr. Sommers reminded everyone that Mrs. Briscoe requested this item be placed on the agenda and since°she is not here, he asked that the item be tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Evans stated that the site plans are provided and requested everyone bring them with to the next meeting. Mr. Sommers asked that an Executive Session be placed on the next agenda for the purpose of discussing this issue. It was also requested that Mr. Spain be present to answer any legal questions that the Commission may have. Without further discussion, Mr. Sommers moved to table the request on proceeding to remove illegal signage on FM 3009, Walgreens and H2 Auto Car Wash until the next meeting date. Mr. Moreno seconded the motion. With a vote being taken, the motion was approved. s #7 Consider and take appropriate action: On a request from Don McCrary & Associates for preliminary plat approval of Wynn Brook Unit 2. Mr. Youngblood asked that this item be removed from the agenda tonight. The request was put on the agenda as a preliminary request and it should be addressed as a final plat. He asked that it be withdrawn until the next meeting. The Commission agreed to withdraw the request and take action on the final plat at the next meeting. #8 Consider and take appropriate Action: On a request from Civil Engineering Consultants for preliminary plat approval of the Fairways at Scenic Hills Unit 1. Mr. Youngblood reported this was originally platted in 1996. He stated there are some conflicts with the building setback lines for utilities and side yard setbacks. Mr. Youngblood also noted the notary commission has expired making it an invalid document. Mr. Evans asked if the master plan was revised. Mr. Alan Lindskog stated that he has the original master plan with him this evening for the Commission to review if so desired. Mr. Lindskog advised the Commission that the current developer would like to reactivate this 1996 plat. The developer has had several meetings with Mr. Simonson and City staff to go over issues that need to be updated or revised. Mr. Lindskog stated the biggest difference between the plat of 1996 and now is that in the 1996 plat the developer wanted private streets. The current developer does not want private streets. He also noted the layout and lot sizes would be the same as previously platted. He stated the side yard setbacks in 1996 were only five feet; the current developer would like to keep those five-foot setbacks so he will be requesting a variance to the side yard setbacks. Mr. Lindskog stated that New Braunfels Utilities (NBU) is requesting twenty-foot easements which would basically take the whole lot except for the house. Mr. Evans stated the master plan is obsolete and .believes it is important for the Commission to see a master plan before they approve a preliminary plat. He stated the preliminary plat is not defined. The Commission needs to look at the master plan to get the whole picture of what 6 would be re-platted. Mr. Evans also noted the area of the plat that refers to the word "septic" does not meet City codes. The maintenance note, along with the septic note, needs to meet the City UDC requirement which reads all common areas are designated. Mr. Evans questioned the 10' rear setback and the 20' front setback. Is this entire area going to be designated for utility easements? Mr. Lindskog advised that New Braunfels Utilities requires 20' setbacks in the front. There was some discussion regarding the variance request for the side yards and Chairman Richmond stated the UDC requires 15' between houses. Mr. Moreno asked if the owner had made any changes to the plats. Mr. Lindskog noted that the plats were taken to Ford Engineering where suggestions were made to change some the notes. Mr. Moreno advised Mr. Lindskog that any necessary changes would need to comply with the current UDC. There was then some discussion regarding whether or not the Commission should take action on this plat before the annexation of the Northcliffe and Scenic Hills area on December 31, 2001. It was stated the plat and the master plan are obsolete because they were not recorded within the necessary one-year-time frame. Mr. Evans noted even though this plat has been updated, it is obsolete because it was not recorded; therefore, the Commission cannot approve it tonight. Without further discussion, Mr. Sommers moved to disapprove the request from Civil Engineering Consultants for preliminary plat approval of the Fairways at Scenic Hills Unit 1. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. With a vote being taken, the motion was approved. #9 Consider and take Appropriate Action: On a request from Mark Mott for site plan approval of Mott's Wrecker Service, Bell North Drive, block 2, lot 5, Schertz Industrial Park. Mr. Youngblood noted this is the first time this request has come before the Commission. Re- stated although this is not a blue line drawing, all of the information necessary for approval is included. The professional drawings are being done and will be ready for submittal before. the permits would be issued. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Sommers asked if Mr. Mott intended on placing a sign in the front of his building. Mr. Mott replied there is no need for afree-standing sign; the one on the building should be good enough. Mr. Evans asked if the building would be a two-story building. Mr. Mott explained part of the building would be because of large machinery and vehicles coming in for repair. Mr. Evans then questioned the lighting. Mr. Mott showed the Commission on the drawing where the security lamps would be placed. He stated there would also be a porch light at the front door of the facility. Mr. Evans asked what would be placed on the gravel at rear of the property. Mr. Mott replied that there would be nothing back there, just extra space. There was some question regarding screening of the fence. Mr. Mott stated that the Industrial Park requires at least screening at the front of the property. Mr. Evans noted that if adjacent neighbors start complaining, Mr. Mott would be required to screen around the entire property. Mr. Evans questioned whether the entire building would be split face block. Mr. Mott stated only the front of the building would be split face block. Mr. Youngblood asked Mr. Mott whether he would consider doing some additional landscaping. Mr. Mott replied that would not be a problem. There was some concern on whether or not the number of trees met the requirements of the UDC (landscape ordinance). The Commission's concerns were the diameter of the trees. Mr. Evans noted the diameter is four inches, therefore meeting the requirements. The Commission briefly discussed the privacy fencing (screening) and Mr. Evans suggested a note be included to state that Mr. Mott would be required to have the entire fencing slotted if the Commission requests it. s Chairman Richmond believes that the Commission needs to make this a requirement right up front and give Mr. Mott a time frame (six months to one year) to add the screening to the fence. Without further discussion, Mr. Van Dine moved to approve the request from Mr. Mott for site plan approval of Mott's Wrecker Service, Bell North Drive, block 2, lot 5, Schertz Industrial Park with the added notes/changes. Mr. Moreno seconded the motion. With a vote being called the motion was approved. At this time, Chairman Richmond asked for statements of fact or comments from Commissioners. Tony Moreno Had no comments Keith Van Dine Had no comments Gary Wallace Had no comments j William Sommers Had no comments Ron Youngblood Reported that the Schertz Bank & Trust banner signs have been removed. Ken Greenwald Had no comments Ernie Evans Commented that he would work with Mr. Youngblood regarding the tree ordinance DBH issue. 9 David Richmond Reported that November 1St the Schertz City Council met with Cibolo City Council in a .joint meeting. It was an excellent meeting. It was a discussion only; no action was taken on any issue. The intent of the meeting was to improve the relations between the two Cities. In conversation with Mayor Baldwin .after the meeting, Chairman Richmond suggested a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commissions of both cities could be beneficial in improving relations. Chairman Richmond reminded the Commission of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 15, 2001 at 6:30pm in the Police Training Room. This will be a long meeting; there are administrative errors on just about every page of the document. Chairman Richmond stated that he wants to make sure it is 100% correct before any approval is given. He noted this would be a joint meeting with members of the Board of Adjustment, Economic Development Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, and Steering Committee. #10 Adjournment: Mr. Van Dine moved to adjourn. Mr. Sommers seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15pm. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission ATTEST: Planning Secretary, City of Schertz io